collaborative sensing for symbiotic human robot environments mel siegel intelligent

Reviews
Shared by: ramhood15
Stats
views:
0
rating:
not rated
reviews:
0
posted:
1/10/2009
language:
English
pages:
0
collaborative sensing for symbiotic human-robot environments mel siegel intelligent sensors measurement & control lab the robotics institute – school of computer science carnegie mellon university – pittsburgh pa 15213 Robotic and Sensors Environments (ROSE-2006) Orebro University – Orebro SE 2006 May 31 ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 1 disclaimers • warning 1: this is a 100% data-free presentation intended only to identify issues, stimulate discussion, and suggest a systematic approach to resolving them • warning 2: when they dabble in human and social issues, physical scientists and engineers tend to forget everything they ever knew – and preached – about how important it is to make plans and decisions based on evidence not intuition (prejudice) ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 2 “chaos in the brickyard” • a “fairy tale” explaining how we became confused about the difference between making “bricks” and building “edifices” – Bernard K. Forscher (Mayo Clinic) Science 142:3590, October 18, 1963 http://www.health.uottawa.ca/biomech/csb/archives/chaos.htm facts & gadgets • Poincare, Forscher, and others (including I. I. Rabi and L. Lederman) who have said the same thing using slightly different metaphors were warning about our confusing of facts with the underlying laws • in the 40+ years since Forscher’s article we have seen the appearance of a parallel pernicious trend: we confuse building gadgets and “infrastructure” with the practical solution of real problems ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 4 • Le savant doit ordonner; on fait la science avec des faits comme une maison avec des pierres; mais une accumulation de faits n'est pas plus une science qu'un tas de pierres n'est une maison. – Henri Poincare ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 3 1 consequence • “systems” with all the “infrastructure” and none of the sensors to make it work • • • • • • • outline introduction helping people sense robots helping robots sense people helping overseers sense both inherently-safe systems what do we need? conclusions and future prospects ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 5 ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 6 contexts • humans and robots working together in – home – medical care – manufacturing – mining, construction, etc, outdoors – rescue – military – space and extraterrestrial planets, etc introduction environments ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 7 ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 8 2 requirements • for safety – enhanced levels of situational awareness • by the human collaborator of the robot • of the human collaborator by the robot realized in part via ... • substantially improved capabilities for – sensing • of the robot by the human • of the human by the robot • of the robot and the human by the “overseer” (i.e., an environmentally-sited sensing, communication, and control entity) • for effectiveness – enhanced levels of coordination – enhanced levels of task-related anticipation • of the robot of the human • of the human of the robot – display • of pose, dynamics, task-status, next-steps, etc • for the human collaborator and external monitors for the collaborative task to succeed ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 9 • and the digital glue to hold it all together ... ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 10 digital glue • commitment to the principle that it is unreasonable to expect the human to be the responsibly-behaving partner • analysis of how collaborations go wrong – and what sensing capabilities will prevent them helping people sense robots • reasonable cost-benefit models – is it reasonable – and ethical – to accept the cost to individuals if the benefit to society seems to outweigh it statistically ? ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 11 ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 12 3 human senses are aided human senses are augmented http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/rearview-helmet ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 13 http://www.tekgear.com/index.cfm?pageID=90&prodid=385§ion=84&nodelist=1,83,84 http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/digital-cameras/headmounted-police-dog-camera-033871.php ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 14 human senses are exploited robot signatures natural signature of robots naturally sensed by humans human needs prosthesis • colors • sounds • air movement • metal • E&M fields • temperature signature easily added to robots • flashing lights • weird sounds • visual identifiers • magnets • RF/US xmtrs • -radiation (?) 16 sarkar / vanderbilt university ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 15 ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 4 sensor friendliness • concept emerged in context of automated or automation-aided driving • friendly roadway and/or friendly vehicle are equipped with (simple, inexpensive) tags that make them easier to sense – license plate w/ augmented radar cross-section – RF transponders – bar magnets embedded in the roadway – fluorescent paint coding lane dividing lines – tail-lights modulated to show driver’s intentions ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 17 ROSE-2006 05 31 sensor friendly robots • many of the concepts that arose in the context of sensor friendly vehicles and roadways are portable to the human-robot collaboration context mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 18 robot actuators are exploited helping robots sense people kosuge & hirata / tohoku university ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 19 ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 20 5 human signatures natural signature of humans naturally sensed by robots robot needs prosthesis ROSE-2006 05 31 whiskers • mechanical? fiber-optic? piezoelectric? etc signature easily added to humans • none before it is too late? • vision • hearing • temperature • whiskers? • none? • special clothing • magnets • RF/US xmtrs 21 ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 22 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS sensor friendly humans?? • theorem: no, it is unreasonable to expect humans to be the parties responsible for safety in human-robot interactions • lemma 1: okay, okay, maybe for some kinds of collaborative work between a robot and a trained professional worker we can assign some responsibility to the human • lemma 2: but never, never, when the interaction is between a robot and a “lay person” ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 23 ROSE-2006 05 31 helping overseers sense both mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 24 6 environment is exploited joint signatures natural signature of human & robot naturally sensed by overseer overseer needs prosthesis signature easily added to human & robot • visible presence • distinctive colors (assuming • unusual patterns ubiquitous cameras) • sounds of work • distinctive lights • warmth • RF/US xmtrs • E &/or M fields • E, M or EM fields mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 26 mizuguchi / tokyo university ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 25 ROSE-2006 05 31 issues • privacy • privacy • privacy inherently-safe systems ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 27 ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 28 7 issues • what/how can we learn from efforts that have been made to make engineered systems “inherently safe”, e.g., nuclear reactor designs that are guaranteed to shut down if/when their control systems fail? means ... • if a component fails ... • or if the control system shuts down ... • the system evolves into a safe steady state – people are not hurt • operators • subjects (rescuees, patients, passengers, etc) • by-standers – the mission succeeds (or does not fail) – the robot is not damaged • (application-dependent priorities of last two) ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 29 ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 30 discussion ... • ... by all ... what do we need? ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 31 ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 32 8 discussion ... conclusions and future issues • ... by all ... ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 33 ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 34 that’s all folks: mushroom medley thanks for your participation ... • my contact information: mel siegel mws@cmu.edu +1 412 268 8742 office/lab http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~mws ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 35 ROSE-2006 05 31 mws@cmu.edu ISMCL RI SCS 36 9

Related docs
Intelligent Robot Laboratory_1_
Views: 1  |  Downloads: 0
Introduction to Virtual Environments
Views: 95  |  Downloads: 14
Robot Workshop_1_
Views: 1  |  Downloads: 0
Robot Control_1_
Views: 5  |  Downloads: 1
Remote Sensing
Views: 16  |  Downloads: 2
Distributed and Layered Sensing
Views: 26  |  Downloads: 0
Cases Brian Siegel, MBA
Views: 28  |  Downloads: 2
premium docs
Other docs by ramhood15
Nevada Application for Adoption RegistryAdoptee
Views: 149  |  Downloads: 0
35029[5]
Views: 189  |  Downloads: 0
Deed on redemption of ground rent
Views: 469  |  Downloads: 3
ALegal Lines _ Terms[0]
Views: 124  |  Downloads: 0
Globalization of White Collar
Views: 293  |  Downloads: 6
Assumption agreement
Views: 287  |  Downloads: 3
Certificate of partnership
Views: 637  |  Downloads: 26
Application for requisition
Views: 206  |  Downloads: 0
Audio Rush Executive Summary
Views: 1583  |  Downloads: 92
Me_Maza
Views: 102  |  Downloads: 0
state of delaware certificate of application
Views: 176  |  Downloads: 1
Of individual or individuals
Views: 103  |  Downloads: 0